2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, including: (a) the submission of new sentencing data at the trial; (b) the submission of them was not made; and (c) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant specifically indicated in the judgment of the first instance court (such as the recognition of the Defendant’s crime; (d) the criminal records prior to the Defendant’s judgment); and (c) the necessity of strict punishment; (d) the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime; and (e) the extent of the amount of damage incurred therefrom) are maintained; and (e) there is no change in the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, background, means, and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the first instance court cannot be deemed to be excessively unfair beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.